« Looking For The Passion | Main | Etsy Labs »
Will The Web Always Be The Minor Leagues Of Video?
Pete at Mashable (which I love) has the news that Lisa Nova is leaving YouTube for TV.
Lisa's show is my favorite on YouTube (other than Wallstrip).
Here's her show about training to be one of those people who dress up as Santa Claus and dance on the stage at Flaming Lips concerts.
Well, she's headed to MADtv and Pete asks the obvious question:
The question is: will TV always be the pinnacle of fame?
Pete thinks that within a year, it may be possible to make a living on YouTube. I wrote a post last september, featuring Lisa Nova as the test case, that suggested Lisa could make money staying on YouTube. It was something like $7000 per month assuming a $15cpm and 33% of that going to YouTube. It would be interesting to know what Lisa is getting paid by MADtv.
Of course, the other consideration besides fortune is fame. Will Lisa have a larger audience on TV than the web? I have no idea what the audience for MADtv is. Her shows on YouTube sometimes would get more than 1mm viewers and almost always had well more than 100,000 viewers. So it's not clear to me that TV is a better channel for fame than the web.
But for now, it appears that the web is the minor leagues. I bet it won't always be.
February 1, 2007 in Venture Capital and Technology | Permalink
Comments
I suspect network TV still crushes even the best YouTube reach. FOX's "Mad TV" most recent Nielsen ratings were 2.7/6, which I think represents about 2.7 million households (2.7% of total USA households; 6% of households watching TV at that time). And YouTube's numbers aren't for "viewers" they're for streams, whether complete, incomplete, aborted, viewed, partially viewed, ignored, whatever.
More to the point, even if a talent like Lisa Nova can make $100K/year on YouTube, the "shlep factor" involved -- the amount of work and anxiety and risk etc -- alone makes the same $100K from a network a slam dunk easy decision. It may be uniquely gratifying to be self-published, or self-made, but you can't eat self-esteem and if one is an artist, I think its a helluva lot more exciting to be able to focus on the creative aspects and leave the "shlepping" to the others.
Finally, yes, YouTube has the opportunity for viral marketing and distribution. But MadTV has the well-oiled well-funded, always-humming Fox Network marketing and promotion machine, and isn't it hard to imagine aspiring artists not wanting to hitch their cabooses to that train?
Maybe someday YouTube will offer that kind of platform to artists. I hope so. It will be a pleasure to see the video network's stranglehold on video distribution broken.
Posted by: steve | Feb 1, 2007 11:09:31 AM
I think the web celebrity thing will be big, but never the same as TV. Thats good for web celebrities as they will be cooler and less bothered and not have all the tradeoffs that tv and movie stars have.
Posted by: howard lindzon | Feb 1, 2007 11:51:29 AM
I think there will ultimately be some kind of real integration between the two. First, self produced video is going to get more sophisticated, as is evident in WallStrips recent production “Jack in the Box”. Add to this the eventual arrival of true “View Upon Demand”, where viewers will be able to chose the day and time that they watch anything, and everything put out by the networks. Whole independent production companies that produce quality stuff like WallStrip will become ripe for acquisition by the majors.
I believe the majors are here to stay for a while, but the possibilities are far reaching, and this is something that will be very good indeed for everyone from the small independent production shop, to the networks, and of course the viewer.
Posted by: Stephen L. McKay | Feb 1, 2007 12:49:46 PM
Agreed: today TV is bigger, better marketed, more slick, etc... but the future belongs to mutiple distribution streams - and having the production capabilities of a network will help videos standing out on the web. Can you imagine the embedded clip being shown on TV? It wouldn't last 10 seconds before people clicked - the expectations are quite different today. In the future, I expect the web expectations to get closer to television, than visa versa.
Posted by: Harry DeMott | Feb 1, 2007 2:13:39 PM
I would suggest that as in the same way YouTube is now the springboard to Madtv (at least in this case), Madtv is the springboard to bigger, though not necessarily better, TV and films. The Groundlings have traditionally been a feeder to SNL. YouTube is now another feeder with absolutely no barriers to entry. That model may change, but that's what seems to be the case now.
Posted by: Gordon Platt | Feb 1, 2007 3:52:49 PM
the question is not whether the web will always be tv's farm club but when will these two finally converge once and for all... as it is not only web moving towards video but tv moving towards computer with tivo, itv, xbox...
i bet some mit drop out huddles in a garage right now putzing with one of those groovy nintendo wii joysticks working on the killer prototypical tv mouse wand that will totally change game...
Posted by: Phil Pearlman | Feb 1, 2007 6:30:02 PM
I don't know what will happen to TV's cache, or how quickly...I'm just glad that you introduced me to Lisa Nova. She's freakin' hilarious and I hope she continues to make her own show even after the MadTV checks start rolling in. :)
Thanks for the tip!
Posted by: Lindsay Campbell | Feb 1, 2007 8:00:52 PM
It reminds of a few years ago when if you were a blogger the best thing it could lead to was a book deal. Cut to a few years later and the best bloggers can support their families with their blog. Video will get there too, I think.
Posted by: Ara | Feb 1, 2007 8:33:03 PM
It will be possible for stellar performers to be discovered and become stars on YouTube but stellar pay won't be there in a year--something approaching union scale maybe.
The nature of fame is changing and no one really knows what the 33rd iteration will look like or how it will be :: wince :: monetized.
Posted by: Andi | Feb 2, 2007 2:20:41 AM
Sorry, HOW would somebody make money on YouTube? What's "$15cpm" ?
Isn't this thinking the same strategy as charging people a monthly membership fee to see your web cam website (remember that craze? probably not, you youngsters...)
There was a reason that died out. YouTube's only popular because it's free, and the kids can skip the step of having to have their own web site....
Posted by: lyberty | Feb 2, 2007 3:07:22 AM
my opinion is that youtube's only function in life is to be the big fat Googly fed whale carcass for the sharks in "old" media to feed off of. yeah i know what Chad said between nibbles lobster canapes and puligny-montrachet at Davos, about their new spiffy, video certifications systems but the truth is that "old" media kicks this iteration of "new" medias ass. this will not always be the case but it is the case today and everyone should stop patting each other on the back. do a nexis search of all the articles about Amanda Congdon & Rocketboom (the citations are staggering) - and then realize that for all the hype the most revenue ever generated was less than a million a year + the audience would not even register in the traditional media.
I leave you with today's shark bites man story: "Viacom demands YouTube pull down videos" who wants the over/under on when viacom "reluctantly" accepts a few hundred mil from larry and sergey in order to post Viacom content on youtube. As i've said in another post - whose the rube at this table?
Posted by: ming666 | Feb 2, 2007 12:27:04 PM
re: my previous post
the over/under is 2 weeks from today (feb 2)
forward your action!
Posted by: ming666 | Feb 2, 2007 12:31:09 PM
I'm interested to see what happens to the online "stars" who fail to cut it on the much more unforgiving tube. Will they be able to resurrect themselves online or will they be forever tainted by "selling out"?
Posted by: John Dodds | Feb 2, 2007 5:06:30 PM
